If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.

I believe that Victoria would have been passed over because she would be unable to ascend to the throne because her uncle Ernest Augustus I King of Hanover (the third son of George the Third) would be favored under salic law.

I don't know that Henry would of made a horrible priest....he was given the title Defender of the Faith by the pontiff at one point for his strong defense (he wrote papers) of Catholicism against religious heresies of the day.

I believe that Victoria would have been passed over because she would be unable to ascend to the throne because her uncle Ernest Augustus I King of Hanover (the third son of George the Third) would be favored under salic law.

Ernst Augustus V would be King since 1987.
Thats accepting the Hanovarian rite to the throne.

For Windsor salic law one would have to look to George VI's brother Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester.

George VI> Edward VIII> George VI> Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (as HM Elizabeth would be passed by for her cousin.) until 1974> Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester would be King under this formula. However he is 20th in Succession now.

Well, I mean if the salic law had been changed to equal primogeniture in Hanover and the UK, QV would've been ruler of both. And as far as George VI's brother goes, if Edward VIII had fathered legitimate children, that would have never been an issue. George VI would've never been George VI lol He would have remained HRH the Duke of York. That very well could have happened - Bertie handing his rights over to Prince Henry - but it was highly frowned upon back then; duty was duty and the sons of George V were raised to believe in that, therefore Bertie took over as George VI when his brother abdicated because it's what was expected of him.

I don't know that Henry would of made a horrible priest....he was given the title Defender of the Faith by the pontiff at one point for his strong defense (he wrote papers) of Catholicism against religious heresies of the day.

MM

Let us suppose Arthur hadn't died without an issue but shortly after the child was born. Henry, as an archbishop would act first as regent, but beeing as derranged as he was, he would soon decide that he should be the the king. He would ask the Pope for a dispensation to marry so his descendents could rule after him. The Pope, under pressure from Catherine (who would support her heir) and her Spanish parents, would deny Henrry's request. At that point, Heny's mistress (Anne Boleyn) would already be pregnant, so Henry would abandon the Catholic Faith so he could get married and from there on history would repeat itself.

If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.

Mary I had two false pregnancies but never actually got pregnant. In august of 1555 her husband left for Spain he didn't return until 1557 when she had her second false pregnancies and in November 1558 she died.

Let us suppose Arthur hadn't died without an issue but shortly after the child was born. Henry, as an archbishop would act first as regent, but beeing as derranged as he was, he would soon decide that he should be the the king. He would ask the Pope for a dispensation to marry so his descendents could rule after him. The Pope, under pressure from Catherine (who would support her heir) and her Spanish parents, would deny Henrry's request. At that point, Heny's mistress (Anne Boleyn) would already be pregnant, so Henry would abandon the Catholic Faith so he could get married and from there on history would repeat itself.

Henry wasn't deranged at the beginning of his reign. His paranoia developed after he contracted syphilis, and he acted tyrannical only after his major jousting accident so I don't think history would have repeated itself.

The way Britain progressed would have been vastly different under a different monarchy, in fact, Britain may have never even been established! Who knows how it would affect the world today if succession had been different!

Against his father's wishes, Eric XIV of Sweden entered into marriage negotiations with the future Queen Elizabeth I of England.
If Elizabeth had married Eric and had children, there may have been descendants of theirs as sovereigns of England and Sweden.

Seems they had to "make do" right from the start, as William was illegitimate himself, so wouldn't have had a claim under Salic law either to Normandy...

Salic law wouldn't have worked several times over in British history.

William the Conqueror was an invader, but his male line died out very quickly - he had 3 sons and 2 male-line grandsons, and neither of his grandsons outlived William's youngest son, Henry. Within a generation William's male-line would have died out, creating a crisis (even without Salic law it created a crisis). Salic law wouldn't have stopped William from coming to the throne as he was a conqueror, but it would have prevented his descendants from maintaining it.

Both Stephen and Henry II got their claims through female lines. Similarly, Edward IV's claim came through female lines - with Salic law there would have been no War of the Roses, as the Yorks wouldn't have had the same leg to stand on. Henry VII would have also been disqualified, as his claim came through his mother. So would have Mary I and Elizabeth II, due to their gender, and James VI and I, as his claim also came through his mother.

Mary II and Anne would have been out due to their gender, and William III's claim would have been out because it came through his mother. So would George I's claim, as it was through his mother and grandmother. Victoria couldn't have reigned, nor could QEII, and Edward VII would have been out because his claim came through his mother. There is literally no way of knowing who would be monarch now because female descent has come into play so frequently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

IIRC, Henry was slated to enter the church, and would likely have risen to the highest ecclesiatical powers; most probably, he would have served on his brother's Privy Council, and perhaps been named Lord Protector in the event of his brother's death during the minority of Arthur's children.

He'd have made a horrible priest, though; he did seem to, ahem, like the ladies. He'd probably have fathered numerous illegitimate children which, if Arthur's children died or if Arthur left only daughters - or, if Henry were such a protector as was Richard III - could have resulted in a War of The Red and White Roses.

Was Henry slated for the church? He was only the second son, and his immediate ancestors don't seem to have slated many sons for the church as it was. If he had gone to the church he would have done fine as a clergyman - his womanizing wouldn't have been an issue because regardless of celibacy vows, many priests had mistresses, and Henry was extremely passionate about his religion.

Had Arthur fathered a son before dying I kind of doubt Henry would have usurped the throne. It's possible, yes, but he knew his history and I think he would have realized that England would no longer tolerate such behaviour - it might have been one thing in the days of Henry I or Richard I and John, but another come Henry VIII's time. A big part of what caused the problems in Henry IV and Richard III's reigns was that they were seen as usurpers. To usurp the throne would have caused Henry VIII huge grief, when as Lord Protector he would have already been very powerful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman

Had the House of Hanover established the Salic law, which was used in Hanover istelf, the UK's present monarch would've been a 25-year-old named King Ernest Augustus VI. Among the other members of the royal family would be HRH The Duke of Windsor (if we assume that the Prince of Hanover would've gotten this "special" title upon marrying a Catholic and thus abdicating the throne), HRH The Duchess of Windsor (Caroline of Monaco), HM Queen Monika (step-grandmother of the "king"), and HRH The Duke of York (Prince Christian of Hanover). Pretty interesting, isn't it?

The Hanovers would have had a hard time justifying introducing Salic law to the UK given as their claim to the throne came through two women - Sophia of Hanover and Elizabeth of Scotland - in the first place, not to mention the fact that Elizabeth I was widely recognized as a good monarch. By the time of the Hanovers, too much history had happened for Salic law to be introduced into Britain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie2006

If Mary I's pregnancy had resulted in a child, and the child was a boy, England and Spain would be more closely tied than they are now. However, if Elizabeth I had married the Count of Anjou and had children, James I/VI would have simply remained King of Scotland and Elizabeth's surviving descendants would be on the throne. If Edward VIII had married a suitable woman and fathered a legitimate heir, Elizabeth II would never have been crowned Queen. There would probably be a King Edward IX on the throne instead...with perhaps another George, Prince of Wales and then the whole Charles and Diana thing probably would've never happenend...because...well...Charles would have been George instead.

If the salic law had been changed in Hanover, Queen Victoria would have ruled over Hanover and the UK, thus QEII would be ruling over more territory.

It's speculated that both Elizabeth I and Edward VIII were infertile, so even had they made marriages (or in Edward's case a more acceptable marriage) it's likely they wouldn't have had children, and QEII would still be Queen.

On the other hand, if William IV had married younger instead of taking a mistress, or been allowed to marry his mistress, things may have been different. He fathered 10 children by his mistress, and is the only English/British monarch who has living descendants and isn't an ancestor to Prince William.

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Dane

Henry wasn't deranged at the beginning of his reign. His paranoia developed after he contracted syphilis, and he acted tyrannical only after his major jousting accident so I don't think history would have repeated itself.

I think the syphilis is just one theory as to the cause of Henry's paranoia - there are a few others. Mental instability seems to be something of a familial trait.

William I's eldest son was Robert Curthose.
Upon William's demise, William Rufus became King William II and Robert was the Duke of Normandy.
If Robert had become King Robert I of England, would he have kept the title of Duke of Normandy?
Or would one of his brothers, William Rufus or Henry, have been the Duke of Normandy?

I've read it said both ways - that Normandy was more valuable than England, but also that England was more valuable than Normandy.

Normandy was the more stable of the realms, and likely more lucrative, but it was technically a vassal state to the kingdom of France. England was in more disarray because of the conquest, but the Normans put a lot of money into building up the defensive, religious, and administrative aspects of the realm.

I've read that William I wasn't exactly pleased by his elder son and wanted to disinherit him entirely, but was instead convinced to instead just give him Normandy while William Rufus received England and Henry received cash. I wonder if the Conqueror considered the two to be fairly even and gave his elder and less beloved son the realm that was a birth right, yet also a vassal state, and his younger and more favoured son the realm that he had own and was in itself a more overlord state (as the King of England even then frequently treated the Welsh and Scots as vassals).

Had William decided to leave England to Robert he was under no obligation to leave anything to his younger sons - Robert could have walked away with the whole lot had his father wished it. Whether or not he would have kept the whole lot is debatable... As it was, he didn't even manage to keep Normandy. Regardless of how you think William Rufus died (accident or murder), during his reign he had managed to essentially buy Normandy (which Robert mortgaged to him in exchange for 10,000 marks), and after his death Henry was able to use his stronghold in England to back his conquest of Normandy and reunite his father's two realms. Robert wasn't exactly a strong ruler and had he been given the whole lot he may have very well lost the whole lot.

What if William III and Mary had a son is something that is interesting. Perhaps a union between the Netherlands and England (as Cromwell already tried), with England as the dominant party of course. No Hannoverians, no Windsors, and the Nassau-Dietz line (now Orange-Nassau) would have stayed local governors in Frisia and Groningen. It is likely that William III would have received a hereditary title of Duke / count of various provinces in The Netherlands or even king if he would have had descendants. For the Netherlands it wouldn't have mattered much: according to historian Pieter Geyl, the Stuart connection of the house of Orange fastened the decay of the Dutch republic as it was eclipsed by the English. The reign of William III saved the Netherlands as an independant state, but after he took the crown the British interests always went before the Dutch. A union would have had an even greater effect.

A union comparable to that of the one between England and Scotland may not have happened - the union between England and Scotland only happened 100 years after their crowns were merged when a succession crisis brought about the possibility of the two separating again and forced the issue. With the UK and Hanover - two states with no historic connections and greatest separated by geography - they were joined together with a single monarch for another 100 years or so without any union of government before being separated because of different succession laws.

With the Dutch, had William and Mary had children (or even had William had a second wife with whom he had children), I think a personal union between the two states would have continued, but not necessarily a union of government like what happened with Scotland and England. The UK and Netherlands would have been two separated (geography, culture, history, etc) to have made one government make sense at the time.

A personal union is the most likely scenario indeed. But a complete union isn't such a far fetched idea. Oliver Cromwell tried to arrange it, and even tried to tempt the provice Holland to merge on its own, without the other provinces. This however met with opposition from both the Orange party as the most of the regents. But under an Orange king it would be more tempting for the Orange party at least. Esp. as the power of Orange would have been much bigger if Willem III actually had had a son.

The connections between England and Holland (& Zeeland to a lesser extend) were quite intense and old, uncomparable with Hanover; though not as close as those of Scotland and England of course. British historian Lisa Jardine wrote an interesting book about it, 'Going Dutch, How England Plundered Holland's Glory', which has as main thesis that the Dutch impact on Englands (daily) life was enormous. But since English and Dutch interests were very different, it is unlikely that such a union (personal or not) would have lasted.

If Henry I's son, Prince William the Atheling, had not died when the White Ship sank in 1120, William might have succeeded to the throne as King William III.
Then the House of Plantagenet might not have come to the throne.